Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[CountArach]

Well, theres this (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2012/2012_match_ups_obama_romney_tied_at_45_obama_48_palin_42) from back in July when Obama was just beginning his implosion..

And more recently, this (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/12/sarah-palin-barack-obama-poll-gap-narrows.html). Apparently, even the likes of Sarah Palin is polling significantly better than earlier in Obama's term.

Finally, a few weeks ago, there was this (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/01/2012-presidential-poll.html). Take from it what you will.
Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php) and Romney (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-romney.php) (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).

[PanzerJaeger]

Palin and Romney are out of the news much more than Obama is. Obama faces constant attacks from all sides, which drags his numbers down. Rather than responding against an individual such as Palin or Romney, he has to respond to a Party, dragging the Party's numbers down rather than these individuals. Under the rigours of a campaign poll numbers change as approval ratings rise and fall and people become more interested in politics. This becomes very obvious if you look at the favourability ratings of both Palin (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php) and Romney (http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-romney.php) (With Romney's data you must look towards the high number of undecideds to see that people are switched off and that, outside of the partisans on both sides, people rely on a campaign narrative to help shape opinions).

While that certainly applies to Romney, the same cannot be said for Palin. Besides Obama, I cannot think of another politician that has been in the news, consistently, more that Palin. That includes Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who are supposedly in charge of this fiasco the Democrats call a government and Scott Brown, the new conservative hero.

More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.

The fact that a woman who continues to be so roundly mocked and villified at the same time is polling very well against O makes quite a point.

[CrossLOPER]

More worrying for Obama's team is that the coverage of Palin has been almost completely negative in the MSM except on Fox News, while the opposite is true of Obama - with positive coverage (excuses) in much of the media, with the only exception being Fox. Yet her numbers continue to rise.
Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office.

Also, I like how Fox News cut from the Q&A session and made a rather unflattering "summary" of what transpired.

[PanzerJaeger]

Honestly she's just a symbol of opposition. I find it difficult to believe that any sensible and responsible individual would actually trust her in a high office.

That's what is so scary. Imagine the numbers a more qualified, less tainted and polarizing Republican with her name recognition would get. There are already a few such Republicans setting up PACs for 2012.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas (http://www.breitbart.tv/las-vegas-mayor-obama-is-not-our-friend/).

CR

[CountArach]

Eh, you gotta know Obama is going to win reelection. His base is disaffected now, wait until full political season. The incumbent always has the advantage.
Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas (http://www.breitbart.tv/las-vegas-mayor-obama-is-not-our-friend/).

CR

I'm loving that mayor! With the 2010 election season rolling around, I'm sure he won't be the last Democrat to tell the Failure in Chief to stay the hell away...

[Subotan]

Couple that with the fact that the economy is likely to come out of recession in the coming year and it seems quite likely. I'm not 100% sure on him winning re-election, but I'd put my money on it.
The economy is already out of recession. And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.

You reap what you sow, RNC.


Obama continues his attack on the working class people of Las Vegas (http://www.breitbart.tv/las-vegas-mayor-obama-is-not-our-friend/).

CR

I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. Of course, the Republican Party is just in a froth about it because they can smell blood on Harry Reid's Seat in the Senate. No real politics to see here folks.

Although I did lol when I saw


NEIL PETERSON
Disappointed in the President
As if that was his sole purpose in life :laugh4:

[Lemur]

The economy is already out of recession.
That's fair, and a lot of very smart people would agree with you. However, until unemployment drops, it's going to feel like a recession in full swing. And nobody is sure when hiring will pick back up. So how the recent recession is going to impact the '10 and '12 elections is ... questionable. Nobody really knows.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I'm surprised that the people of Las Vegas, the "Entertainment Capital of the World", are offended by what Obama said. It wasn't even an insult. :

It was saying companies should not go to Las Vegas and waste their money there. That means the people who work their have a lot less work to do, and so people get fired or laid off.

They're are quite understandably offended because Obama is saying it's bad for companies to employ their services; it's bad for those workers to have jobs in that industry.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

And the Republican Party has spent the duration of that recession opposing the measures which ended it.

Yikes. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/04/fiscal_stimulus_is_buying_trouble_100164.html) That line is so completely divorced from reality, even for a master salesman like O, it may just be a talking point too far.

Its usually pretty easy for politicians to confuse the unwashed over complex economics, but promising 8% and delivering 10% isn't hard to comprehend.

[Lemur]

Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?

[PanzerJaeger]

Just our of curiosity, PJ, do you believe America has had a worse president than Obama? If so, who?

Rhetorical? :smiley:

[Lemur]

No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.

-edit-

To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive. Worse than Harrison? Worse than Buchannan? Or is he more mid-list? It's impossible to get a sense of what you actually think of him, since your points about him are universally negative. Not much information there. And based on your posts in the Liberal Fascism thread, you appear to believe that rhetorical extremity is perfectly legitimate as a corrective, so I can't begin to get a sense of what you actually believe.

[Megas Methuselah]

Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.

[Xiahou]

To clarify -- knowing just how low you rank Obama would be instructive.How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow.

But maybe I'm just missing what the relevance is.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is pretty rare for someone to only say negative things about a politician.

[Lemur]

How would it matter? How he ranks Obama shouldn't be relevant to the merit of any criticism made. It sounds more like you're trying to set up some kind of ad hominem. ie: He thinks Obama is the worst president ever, therefore his criticism is invalid. That doesn't follow.
Thank you for inventing an entire argument for me. Why, I barely need post with you putting all kinds of interesting words in my future self's mouth.

PJ postures, and he is the first to admit he postures. Is it so freakish and diabolical to want to know how he ranks the current President when he isn't forming a specific line of argument?

By way of contrast, while I thought George W. Bush was a very bad president, I always took issue with people who made the argument that he was the worst ever. To me that showed a real, palpable lack of history. I wouldn't even put GWB in the bottom ten. Our republic has survived some pretty terrible chief executives in its time.

Sasaki, if you need any help stuffing your straw man, please let me know, I'm free after the kids' bathtime.

[PanzerJaeger]

No, a serious question. Your rhetoric on Obama is so negative, I'm wondering if you think him the absolute worst, or if there is room for lower. You're not required to answer anything you don't want to, of course.

Obama unquestionably represents the worst elements of contemporary American politics, but is he the worst president in United States history? It’s way too early to tell; or to issue him a rank. He certainly hasn’t done as much damage to the fabric of the nation as FDR or LBJ, for example. Actually he hasn't done much at all.

Ironically, that dismal failure in actually executing his job as president– despite a rare supermajority ensuring a powerless opposition – may just have saved him from the full fury of future history books. The profligate (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/) spending ensures he won’t go down as a “good” president, but had he passed that massive unfunded liability that was (is) healthcare “reform” and the penalty on industry, based on crumbling science, that was (is) Cap and Trade, things would look far worse for him.

Who knows, though? Despite being roundly rejected by the populace time and again, Obama’s agenda continues to rear its ugly head. He’s still got plenty of time to fall even further down the list. :beam:



Hey, it's that German! Never saw the euro post around for a long time. Mindi moonyaqueh animush.

Hey man. Good to see you are still around. The posturing and rhetorical flourish that Lemur speaks of got the best of me one too many times and I wound up on the wrong side of the ban-stick. Lesson learned the hard way. :smug2:

[Lemur]

That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan). I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)

-edit-

Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents). I had no idea it was such a sport.

[PanzerJaeger]

That's a fair answer, PJ. Thanks for satisfying my prosimian curiosity. (And while I understand why you single out FDR and LBJ as baddies, you'd have to agree that no chief executive has ever done more to tear the United States apart than James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan). I believe he sets the bar so low that no president past or future will ever get under it.)


Well, I believe the Governor of Texas threatened secession last year, and several other states have reasserted their rights under the 10th amendment, so you never know. :laugh2:

All kidding aside, I can agree that Obama has a long way to fall before he gets anywhere close to the bottom of the list.

[KukriKhan]

Bit of a side note, but while thumbing through Wiki, I ran across this article about president rankings. I had no idea it was such a sport.

Yeah. Look at the sea of red in the mid-1800's, with Lincoln the only green island.

-edit-
aw, heck. I didn't address "Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration". How about this:


A Tibet Freedom Movement activist makes a portrait of U.S. President Barack Obama with his blood in Shimla, India as he thanks him for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama, Thursday, Feb. 4, 2010. China on Wednesday again urged Obama not to hold a planned meeting with Dalai Lama, saying it would further hurt already strained bilateral relations. According to Chhime R. Chhoekyapa, the Dalai Lama's secretary, the Dalai Lama will be in Washington on Feb 17-18. (my bolded underline).

from this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/05/AR2010020500566.html

Q: Should Obama meet with the Dali Lama?

A: Sure. Gonna meet with the pope, dinner-jacket, and (maybe) 김정일,... what harm can the Dali do? How many Divisions has he?

[PanzerJaeger]

In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html). Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?


In an oped in USA Today, John Brennan -- Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism -- responds to critics of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policies by saying "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

[Aemilius Paulus]

In a coming-full-circle moment, the current administration accuses its critics of helping the terrorists (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html). Ironic.. hypocritical.. hilarious?
Haha, even as a strong Obama backer and Dem I can see all three things you say it is... :laugh4:

Yeah, I think 'helping the terrorists' is the new 'He is a damn Red!' or 'he is a damn Fascist'... Unfortunately this is a tactic that does not work well on GOP whose credentials of being tough with 'terrorists' is not to be questioned.

[Strike For The South]

Can someone explain to me how Obama is any different than Clinton or Bush?

The last 20 years we've had the same president, the only difference being one liked fat chicks, one liked Jesus, and one likes black people.

Can someone explain to me how;

Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?

Clinton's welfare reform is any different than Bush's compassionate consevativism?

How interveinig in the former Yougo, the ME, and ramping up troops in Afghan are any different?

We've been governed buy lame ducks since I've been born.

Since Obama has gotten into office he has been center left at best, while I don't agree with some of his ideas I believe he has a few good nuggets, however these want get any attention because he's a forigen born muslim communist who wants to eat beautifual blonde infants.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Quite simple, SFTS. Or as Watson would say, 'elementary!' - NO, I loathe sherlock holmes, as did Conan Doyle, who hated him with all his heart and wrote about Holmes only because they paid him several pounds for every friggin' sentence of the detective story (true fact)

Anyhow, nice intro :laugh:, but Obama and Clinton both are pushing/pushed for a healthcare reform, but both bills got mired with the natural Republican opposition. Except that right now the Republicans are being pure pigs, while back in Clinton's time they were about average in their opposition - hey, Clinton passed NAFTA.

Bush did not do much for healthcare. He merely dumped more money on the seniors. Dumping money is easy. Actually fixing the workings of the sytem is a Herculean labour. The American model is setting new high for inefficiency and this must be addressed. Even without medical insurance, US could have decent healthcare if the service was cheaper. Cap the spending on terminally ill, stop the doctor-gets-paid-per-procedure, stop the drug-company-paying-the-doctor, tone down the malpractice lawsuits, take the British approach by approving drugs only after a stringent cost:benefit ratio, tax the wealthy a tad to subsidise certain forms of healthcare, do something about the great gov't Ponzi scheme, a.k.a Social Security. All these are solutions, with varying difficulty of implementation. All these are more than just simple throwing-money-at-the-problem-approach.

'Compassionate conservatism'? Haha, nice buzzword there, I have heard of it... How about 'Tax-and-spend libertarian'? Either makes about the same amount of sense. US conservatives generally favour the wealthy and the liberals favour the working-class. Deregulation and small government is naturally hostile to the poor. I'd like a conservative in the Backroom to try to argue against this.

Kosovo was Clinton's folly, yes, it is true. But that was still Cold War politics speaking there, before the current situation. Dems and the GOP intervened in other nations' affairs nearly equally. Russia had interests in the Yugo wars, and where there is Russia, there is sure to be US, whether US likes it or not. Ramping up troops in Afghanistan? You cannot leave once you come in. The point is to not stick your nose into horsedung in the first place. But Iraq would be a better example for this purpose.

Lame ducks? Blame the 'No' strategy of the Republicans today. Now, Clinton, Clinton does not have an excuse, and neither does Bush. Both faced about average opposition. But hey, chew on this: who was the fiscal conservative? The surplus Clinton or the OMFG-WTF-deficit, and recession President Bush? You decide...

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bush's medicare expansion is anydifferent than Obamas healthcare expansion?


Both use lots of money, but I think Obama's would require more taxes in the end. It also effects many more people, usually in the way of limiting what options they have or freedom to choose the health insurance they desire.

And now; the Obama administration says federal agencies should be able to track anyone's cell phone, at any time, with no warrant. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10451518-38.html)


Even though police are tapping into the locations of mobile phones thousands of times a year, the legal ground rules remain unclear, and federal privacy laws written a generation ago are ambiguous at best. On Friday, the first federal appeals court to consider the topic will hear oral arguments (PDF) in a case that could establish new standards for locating wireless devices.

In that case, the Obama administration has argued that warrantless tracking is permitted because Americans enjoy no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in their--or at least their cell phones'--whereabouts. U.S. Department of Justice lawyers say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" that show where a mobile device placed and received calls.

Those claims have alarmed the ACLU and other civil liberties groups, which have opposed the Justice Department's request and plan to tell the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia that Americans' privacy deserves more protection and judicial oversight than what the administration has proposed.

"This is a critical question for privacy in the 21st century," says Kevin Bankston, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who will be arguing on Friday. "If the courts do side with the government, that means that everywhere we go, in the real world and online, will be an open book to the government unprotected by the Fourth Amendment."

So much for Obama being good on civil liberties.

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

52 percent of Americans said President Barack Obama doesn't deserve reelection in 2012, according to a new poll. (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/81213-52-say-obama-doesnt-deserve-reelection-)

2012 is eons away, but man, has the lipstick worn off this pig or what?

[Lemur]

An incumbent polls slightly below "someone else," an undefined anyman? Heavens! That's never happened in the history of polling! It's as though the entire people of Earth have turned on the false Obamessiah! And you were there first, PJ!

[PanzerJaeger]

It's as though the entire people of Earth have turned on the false Obamessiah! And you were there first, PJ!

And all I got was this (http://www.cafepress.com/+obama_audacity_of_hype_dark_tshirt,237673169) crappy t-shirt... :beam:

[KukriKhan]

Let's see... 500bn remaining of 'stimulus' money. 132,618,580 voters last election (= people who cared enough to show up and be heard). Doing long division......

$3,770.21 per voter. Start cutting checks, I say. Wanna help pay down the Nat'l Debt? Endorse the check and send it back. Wanna pay off a credit card? OK, too. Throw it into your dismal 401(k)? No problem. Let the voters decide.

[Lemur]

You just can't win with some people: Bush Official Criticizes Obama for Killing Too Many Terrorists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/bush-official-criticizes_n_469326.html)


At a panel on national security policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Friday, a prominent lawyer from the Bush administration's Department of Justice said he was concerned that the higher number of terrorist executions taking place under Obama was compromising U.S. intelligence operations.

"Why have executions increased?" asked Viet Dinh, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and one of the authors of the USA Patriot Act. Citing a recent Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303748.html) on the increased targeted killing of terrorists, Dinh complained that "the president and vice president expound this fact as a fact that they are actually successful in war."

"That doesn't mean I think they are not illegitimate," he added. "No, we have every right to kill the other side's warriors. But at what cost? When we do not have an effective detention policy the only option we have is to kill them before we can detain them. And if we don't detain them, we don't know what they know and what they are up to."

The crowd applauded. Though, it should be noted, Dinh got a scattering of hisses and boos when he defended the Patriot Act.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's see... 500bn remaining of 'stimulus' money. 132,618,580 voters last election (= people who cared enough to show up and be heard). Doing long division......

$3,770.21 per voter. Start cutting checks, I say. Wanna help pay down the Nat'l Debt? Endorse the check and send it back. Wanna pay off a credit card? OK, too. Throw it into your dismal 401(k)? No problem. Let the voters decide.

No can do Kukri, they might remember that it IS their money.

[Xiahou]

You just can't win with some people: Bush Official Criticizes Obama for Killing Too Many Terrorists (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/19/bush-official-criticizes_n_469326.html)The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/13/AR2010021303748.html?hpid=topnews) covered this a while back.
The Nabhan decision was one of a number of similar choices the administration has faced over the past year as President Obama has escalated U.S. attacks on the leadership of al-Qaeda and its allies around the globe. The result has been dozens of targeted killings and no reports of high-value detentions.

Although senior administration officials say that no policy determination has been made to emphasize kills over captures, several factors appear to have tipped the balance in that direction. The Obama administration has authorized such attacks more frequently than the George W. Bush administration did in its final years, including in countries where U.S. ground operations are officially unwelcome or especially dangerous. Improvements in electronic surveillance and precision targeting have made killing from a distance much more of a sure thing. At the same time, options for where to keep U.S. captives have dwindled.
The concern is that assassination may be getting favored over detention/interrogation because the administration has no clear policy on how to detain/interrogate. Killing terrorists is well and fine, but we should also be squeezing them for intelligence wherever possible.

[Lemur]

Killing terrorists is well and fine, but we should also be squeezing them for intelligence wherever possible.
Given your side's take on unlimited executive power, I don't think squeeze (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm) was the best verb for that sentence.

For a less hysterical take on Obama and the GWOT, Lexington has a nice essay this week (http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15579751).


An anti-Obama bumper-sticker asked: “So you’re for abortion but against killing terrorists?”

Most of these barbs are bunk. Yes, Mr Obama favours trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of September 11th 2001, in a civilian court. But that is not a sign of weakness. Several terrorists were successfully prosecuted in civilian courts under George Bush. And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did. For some reason, his habit of blowing up alleged terrorists and bystanders from the air causes less global outrage than the smothering of a lone Hamas operative, allegedly by Israel, in a hotel room in Dubai. But whether you think it justified or not, it is hardly evidence that the president is “against killing terrorists”.

[Xiahou]

So your response to concerns being raised that Obama is too quick to kill terrorist leaders instead of capturing them is to post a story that talks about how Obama is blowing terrorists and civillians to scraps? And then you call it "less hysterical"? Ok.... :inquisitive:

[Lemur]

Didn't read the article, didja? And I can only imagine what you'd be saying if Obama were capturing more terrorists suspects than killing them. Your line of attack would be both obvious and well-occupied.

Face it, Xiahou, if the current President transformed water into wine you'd complain about underaged drinking. If he walked on water you'd declare that he was violating aquatic rights. There's nothing he can do that will satisfy you, short of magically transforming himself into Sarah Palin.

And if you'd actually read the piece I linked, you'd see that he's doing rather better than your boy Bush did on the GWOT front. Not that I'd expect you to admit or acknowledge that much. Ever.

[Xiahou]

It must be therapeutic for you to transfer all of your pent up blind seething rage onto me. I guess I should feel honored to be the target of so large a proportion of your ad hominems and straw men. :shrug:


And if you'd actually read the piece I linked, you'd see that he's doing rather better than your boy Bush did on the GWOT front. Not that I'd expect you to admit or acknowledge that much. Ever.Of course, because one editorial (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/03/08/obamas_mideast_horror_show_98842.html) would prove beyond a doubt that Obama's been a massive foriegn policy success. :yes:

"My boy Bush" :laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I like Obama.

[Lemur]

Of course, because one editorial (http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2010/03/08/obamas_mideast_horror_show_98842.html) would prove beyond a doubt that Obama's been a massive foriegn policy success. :yes:
Oh, so your response to a respectable editorial from The Economist is a screed from RCP? Poke your head out of the rightwing echo chamber every now and then, it'll do your mind some good.


"My boy Bush" :laugh4:
I love how no rightwinger ever supported Bush. Sure, you love the torture policies, the Patriot Act, the unlimited executive power, the Christian marketing themes, the preemptive war, the chest-thumping ally-infuriating foreign policy ... but he wasn't really one of you. No no no. Real conservatism is a Platonic ideal of purity that only exists in pre-media Palin and the fevered dream of a Fred Thompson presidency. But a guy like Bush? No, he must be some sort of liberal, 'cause we all know that bad things are liberal.

[Xiahou]

That's right, just let it out. It's not good to keep all that pent up inside....

[KukriKhan]

Abbott and Costello
Martin and Lewis
Gawain and JAG

Lemur and Xiahou

All classics. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

And if you'd actually read the piece I linked, you'd see that he's doing rather better than your boy Bush did on the GWOT front. Not that I'd expect you to admit or acknowledge that much. Ever.

I'm a little late to the party but I'd just like to point out that that is not at all what they piece said.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Update: I'm still liking Obama.

Will continue to update as the situation develops.

[Xiahou]

From Der Speigel: Obama Unites Israelis and Arabs in Disappointment (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,683591,00.html)

Hopes were high in the Middle East when US President Barack Obama took office last year. But instead of progress toward peace, he has shown indecision and hesitancy. With many in the region united against Iran, he is in danger of letting a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.
Obama can hardly count on gaining the support of allies, partly because he doesn't pay much attention to them. The American president doesn't have a single strong ally among European heads of state. "The president is said to be reluctant to take time to build relationships with foreign leaders," writes the Washington Post.
Just be glad we don't have "my boy" Bush around to alienate our allies anymore, right? :laugh4:
https://img101.imageshack.us/img101/9093/georgebushmissmeyet.jpg

[Fragony]

Muahahaha YES WE CAN http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-obama-foreign-policy-identical-to-bush.html

lol@Nobel peace price commission and allllllllllllllllllll the others who judge someone on the color of his skin.

[Lemur]

Just be glad we don't have "my boy" Bush around to alienate our allies anymore, right? :laugh4:
This from a man who openly admits that he admires Sarah Palin, the closest thing we have to a Bush sequel. Yikes. If Bush isn't your boy, whose is he?

[Beskar]

Muahahaha YES WE CAN http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-obama-foreign-policy-identical-to-bush.html

lol@Nobel peace price commission and allllllllllllllllllll the others who judge someone on the color of his skin.

I didn't know you followed some one who thinks Jews did 9/11 along with claiming to have predicted it and who said the apocolypse was coming in 2000 with Russia invading America, and all these sorts of things.

[Fragony]

Neither did I, link?

[m52nickerson]

There's nothing he can do that will satisfy you, short of magically transforming himself into Sarah Palin.


Even then he might be angry with Obama changing gender.

[Xiahou]

This from a man who openly admits that he admires Sarah Palin, the closest thing we have to a Bush sequel. Yikes. If Bush isn't your boy, whose is he?
Hmm, I don't know when I ever said openly or otherwise that I admire Sarah Palin.... but you've never let that stop you before. Project away. :yes:

For the record, I do like some things about Palin- but she's far from my dream politician. For starters, she still hasn't learned how to handle media relations at all.... ~:handball:

[Lemur]

Hmm, I don't know when I ever said openly or otherwise that I admire Sarah Palin.... but you've never let that stop you before. Project away.
Ah, if only there were a search function for the Backroom. You stated quite clearly that you admired Palin in a thread some months ago, and it shocked me enough to lodge in my brain. You did note in the same thread, however, that you didn't feel she performed well with the media. If you want to dispute this, I'm willing to go through the tedious process of dredging up your quote, but you don't seem to really be disputing the point, just being a little cranky that I brought it up.

As I've said before, if our president ever does anything that you approve, that would be noteworthy. But as Margaret Thatcher, that socialist single-payer healthcare supporter said, "If I walked on water my critics would say it was because I couldn't swim."

[Xiahou]

Not cranky at all, Lemur. I actually think it's rather amusing how you seem to think that I'm some composite caricature of everything you hate about conservatives. What I say doesn't matter, anything that burns you up about the right is automatically what I strongly believe. :thumbsup:

I'm sure I've said I liked things about Palin before. I still do like some things about her- but her lack of media savvy and tendency towards petty squabbling are really becoming off-putting. I don't know that I ever idolized her the way you seem to think I do now- even when she first came to the national stage. And since, my opinion of her has only cooled.


As I've said before, if our president ever does anything that you approve, that would be noteworthy.And if he ever did anything you don't approve of....

[Beskar]

Neither did I, link?

Material is on Prisonplanet itself and it's surrounding sites.

http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html

In July, 2001, Jones predicted the attacks of September 11, 2001, on his cable television show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8

Also, he really likes to rant about the NEW WORLD ORDER. etc

You probably just browsed onto it, but it is full of all sorts of stuff like that. It is America's number 1 conspiracy central.

[Fragony]

What does Ron Paul have to do with http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html <-this?

Pretty wild claim, not saying it isn't true but I would have found it by now.

[CountArach]

What does Ron Paul have to do with http://www.infowars.com/alexjones.html <-this?

Pretty wild claim, not saying it isn't true but I would have found it by now.
Ron Paul is a rallying point for 9/11 conspiracy theorists and is (from memory) the only candidate to say that 9/11 needs to be re-investigated. He himself is not a conspiracy theorist on this matter at least, though, but many of his supporters will blindly follow him because of his commitment to this re-investigation.

[Subotan]

Muahahaha YES WE CAN http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-obama-foreign-policy-identical-to-bush.html

lol@Nobel peace price commission and allllllllllllllllllll the others who judge someone on the color of his skin.

First La Rouche and now Prison Planet? You really need to get credible sources Frag.

[Fragony]

First La Rouche and now Prison Planet? You really need to get credible sources Frag.

Does it matter who hosts the interview. It's about what's said. You can find the increase in military spending, and the more agressive approach everywhere.

Ron Paul is a rallying point for 9/11 conspiracy theorists and is (from memory) the only candidate to say that 9/11 needs to be re-investigated.

I see, that's not quite the same thing as jews being responsible for 9/11. Not at all.

[Lemur]

What I say doesn't matter, anything that burns you up about the right is automatically what I strongly believe.
Oh, I don't need to put ideas or words in your mouth, you do a splendid job of toeing the National Review party line on your own. You're plenty intelligent enough to see multiple sides to an issue, and yet you inevitably come out with the standard "conservative" line. And when I call you "conservative," I mean in that radical, tradition-ignoring, un-conservative social re-engineering sense that we Americans mean when we call someone "conservative." It's what the rest of the world would call, I dunno, "reactionary" or "rightist" or something like that. Certainly nothing that the father of modern conservatism, Oakeshott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oakeshott), would recognize.


And if [Obama]ever did anything you don't approve of....
He has done plenty that I don't like. What, you want a list? Shall we start with the most recent, his siding with the RIAA and MPAA on a "three strikes" law in the US?

[Beskar]

I see, that's not quite the same thing as jews being responsible for 9/11. Not at all.

The website who you linked from does, however, believe that. I was criticising the source, not Ron Paul himself.

[Fragony]

The website who you linked from does, however, believe that. I was criticising the source, not Ron Paul himself.

Misunderstood you there sorry (although I can't find it on the site). I do not know that site didn't look all that bad. I'll explain myself, got the story from here http://www.nrc.nl/buitenland/article2504493.ece/Terreuraanpak_Obama_identiek_aan_die_van_Bush , a highly respected Dutch newspaper. Translating it to english got me there, my bad.

[Beskar]

Absolutely no problem, I wasn't out to get you. I was just surprised you linked Prison Planet.

[Fragony]

:bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't put too much stock in public opinion polls, but it does feel good to be back in the majority (www.gallup.com), even by Gallup's metrics. :beam:

[Xiahou]

He has done plenty that I don't like. What, you want a list? Shall we start with the most recent, his siding with the RIAA and MPAA on a "three strikes" law in the US?But had you posted any of it?


And when I call you "conservative," I mean in that radical, tradition-ignoring, un-conservative social re-engineering sense that we Americans mean when we call someone "conservative." It's what the rest of the world would call, I dunno, "reactionary" or "rightist" or something like that. Certainly nothing that the father of modern conservatism, Oakeshott, would recognize. Thanks for proving my point. :bow:

[Lemur]

But had you posted any of it?
I just did, sunshine, which is rather more than you've ever done.

Meanwhile, another top Al Qaeda operative is killed, which means we will never be able to waterboard him. Cue "conservative" unhappiness.

Al-Qaida leader believed killed (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100317/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_al_qaida_leader_killed_3;_ylt=AgBBNqKI4y7aYJ3.b2YDsMYHS5Z4)

An al-Qaida leader believed to have played a key role in the bombing of a CIA post in Afghanistan last December was apparently killed by an American missile strike last week, a senior U.S. official said Wednesday.

The counterterrorism official said Hussein al-Yemeni was believed killed in a strike in Miram Shah, the main town in North Waziristan. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

Drone strikes in Pakistan's border region, largely conducted by the CIA, have escalated in recent months, proving an effective way to target al-Qaida and Taliban leaders hiding in the rugged mountainous border. While Pakistani officials have criticized the strikes, it is widely believed that Islamabad privately supports the attacks and works with the U.S. to provide intelligence.

Al-Yemeni is considered an important al-Qaida planner and explosives expert who had established contact with groups ranging from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula to Afghan and Pakistani Taliban militant groups. He is also known as Ghazwan al-Yemeni.

[Xiahou]

I just did, sunshine, which is rather more than you've ever done.
Hang in there, sweetcheeks, I think you're close to a breakthrough. See, when I suggested that you haven't posted anything negative about Obama, I was making a rhetorical point. I have sense enough to realize that even you have a few bones to pick with Obama. Even though you haven't posted anything but praise or defense of Obama, I knew that you can't approve of every single thing he does. You generally approve of Obama, and don't feel the need to chronicle every single thing he does that you don't think is perfect. Now think on that for a minute- do you think that someone might generally disapprove of Obama and not feel the need to chronicle every time they don't think he's screwing up?

Either way, it's fallacious to try and dismiss someone's criticisms or praise simply because they "always" criticize or praise. The arguments stand on their own, yes?

Oh, just in case your head hasn't already exploded- you named one thing Obama did that you didn't like. I'll do the opposite. I liked that he was willing to commit more troops to Afghanistan. :yes:

[Lemur]

Either way, it's fallacious to try and dismiss someone's criticisms or praise simply because they "always" criticize or praise. The arguments stand on their own, yes?
Point taken, but there's a certain hypnotic monotony to the way you're willing to attack the current president on any and every point that I find silly. Your insistence that he is killing too many terrorists is a particularly ironic example, especially given the attack you would obviously make on him if he were not killing so many terrorists.

[Xiahou]

Point taken, but there's a certain hypnotic monotony to the way you're willing to attack the current president on any and every point that I find silly. Your insistence that he is killing too many terrorists is a particularly ironic example, especially given the attack you would obviously make on him if he were not killing so many terrorists.Well, IIRC, you posted some link about the GOP criticizing him for assassinating terrorists. I posted a link to a WaPo story, in an attempt to show that the concern isn't limited to far-right lala land. Some people are legitimately concerned that Obama may be authorizing assassination in favor of capture due to the fact that the administration has no coherent detention/interrogation system in place. The CIA's interrogation unit has been shut down, and as we learned during the underwear bomber saga, it's replacement is not yet operational. You also have to take Obama's unfullfilled promise to close the Gitmo detention center into consideration. The fear is that the assassinations are being carried out for political expediency.

Personally, I think it's great for Obama to order assassinations of known terrorists. However, I hope it's not being done at the expense of valuable intelligence assets because Obama wants to avoid having to figure out what to do with them once they're captured. If they can be captured instead of killed, it may sometimes be better to detain and interrogate them. I think it's a valid concern.

[Lemur]

Let's unpack the host of unspoken assumptions and Fox News-style elisions in the latest:


Obama may be authorizing assassination in favor of capture due to the fact that the administration has no coherent detention/interrogation system in place.
Which implies that there has ever been a coherent detention/interrogation system in place, which demonstrably there hasn't. Even George W. Bush was declaring how he'd like to close Gitmo down for the latter half of his presidency, torture was sorta-renounced in 2004, an ad hoc system has been letting people out of Gitmo since 2005, etcetera. The entire system of detention/enemycombatant status was a fudge from the beginning. The incoherent policies we have now are either a continuation of or an improvement on the policies we've had since 2001. But you state this as though some sort of well-oiled machine has been stripped out by the new kids who don't know what they are doing. As per usual, your argument lacks anything resembling good faith.


The CIA's interrogation unit has been shut down
Every single CIA interrogation unit has been shut down? Do tell. Or are you conflating the Cheney/Bybee/Yoo torture system with all interrogation?


and as we learned during the underwear bomber saga, it's replacement is not yet operational.
What's replacement? And how exactly did the undie bomber demonstrate that we don't know how to interrogate terrorists (http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/03/fbi_detroit_terror_suspect_uma.html)? You state this flatly, without backup, as though we're all reading NewsMax and Breitbart and nodding our heads to Drudge. It's the blank assertion of rightwing talking points like this that really rob your arguments of credibility. You're taking the assertions of political operatives and accepting them as given truth, utterly ignoring what, say, the FBI has to say on the matter. At the very least you should concede that there is "controversy" over how well the FBI's methods work; I'd cut you slack for that. But to just flat-out declare that the black-site torture system worked and the FBI interrogations didn't indicates that you are either privy to the deepest levels of CT intel, or that you're talking out your posterior orifice.

[CountArach]

I don't put too much stock in public opinion polls, but it does feel good to be back in the majority (www.gallup.com), even by Gallup's metrics. :beam:
One day of noise should not be quoted as evidence of anything... By Pollster.com's rolling average of just Gallup polls their average is 48.4-44.7. Pollster.com's overall disapproval rating of Obama is in the negatives, that's true, but Rasmussen (being an incredibly prolific pollster who uses a likely voter model that is best left out for Approval rating questions IMO - as it is not a reflection of the approval given by a country, just a series of people likely to vote in the midterms, a different subset altogether) forces this about 3 points anti-Obama.

[Xiahou]

The entire system of detention/enemycombatant status was a fudge from the beginning.I would agree. I often criticized the Bush administration's handling of the enemy combatant situation. They seemed to want a 'make it up as we go and take our word for it' approach with no clear delineation on who was an enemy combatant and who was a domestic criminal. That lack of clarity rightly earned Bush much criticism. I support being able to detain enemy combatants, but we should be very clear about where and under what circumstances we do so.

Rather than casting to broad a net, it seems that Obama may be unwilling to cast a net at all. The concern voiced is that rather than figuring out how to handle detainees, it's much easier politically to not capture any alive. I certainly think that terrorist leaders are better off dead than running free- but I would hope that we wouldn't miss out on intelligence gather just because Obama doesn't want to face the problem. We may never know if that's the case. :shrug:


What's replacement?I was referring to this (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/26/exclusive-new-obama-interrogation-unit-not-deployed-to-question-captured-taliban-chief.aspx)(from Newsweek):

Earlier this year, Obama administration intelligence officials came under heavy criticism from Capitol Hill Republicans for not deploying the HIG to question Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian terrorist suspect who tried to blow up a Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underpants. At the time, it was unclear, based on signals coming out of the administration, whether the HIG was sufficiently well organized to participate in the underpants-bombing suspect's questioning, which ended up being conducted by the FBI. (The HIG is supposed to be an interagency unit composed of top intelligence and interrogation experts from across the government.)
and from the AP- How U.S. botched interrogation of Christmas Day plane bomb suspect (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2010/01/ap_exclusive_how_us_botched_in.html)

There was no effort to call in the elite federal High-Value Interrogation Group, a special unit of terror specialists that the Obama administration said early last year it would create to deal with terror suspects captured abroad.

Last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said the unit should have been called in after Abdulmutallab’s arrest. But even if federal officials wanted to expand its use to domestic cases, the special team was not ready for action, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress last week.

Notice- no FoxNews, no Breitbart, no Drudge. Indeed, I think you'd find I never link to any of those sources and generally stick to mainstream news outlets. You just seem to automatically assume everything I post is from the Free Republic for some reason. Pretty much anytime I'm going to post something in the Backroom, I attempt to verify it via other news outlets- if I can't, I usually keep it to myself. If I may pat myself on the back, I think that's a good practice. :book:

[Lemur]

I was referring to this (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2010/02/26/exclusive-new-obama-interrogation-unit-not-deployed-to-question-captured-taliban-chief.aspx)(from Newsweek):
A fair-minded article that does nothing to support your flat assertion that the current administration has no method for interrogating terrorists. From your link:


The suspect spoke openly, said one official, talking in detail about what he’d done and the planning that went into the attack. Other counterterrorism officials speaking on condition of anonymity said it was during this questioning that he admitted he had been trained and instructed in the plot by al-Qaida operatives in Yemen.

The interview lasted about 50 minutes. Before they began questioning Abdulmutallab, the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warnings providing his right to remain silent. [...] Investigators are allowed to question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning if they are trying to end a threat to public safety. [...]

Based on the instructions from Washington, the second interview was conducted by different FBI agents and others with the local joint terrorism task force.

Such a move is not unusual in cases where investigators or prosecutors want to protect themselves from challenges to evidence or statements.

By bringing in a so-called “clean team” of investigators to talk to the suspect, federal officials aimed to ensure that Abdulmutallab’s statements would still be admissible if the failure to give him his Miranda warning led a judge to rule out the use of his first admissions.

Even if Abdulmutallab’s statements are ruled out as evidence, they still provided valuable intelligence for U.S. counterterrorism officials to pursue, officials said.

So the suspect was interrogated and he gave up intel which the FBI claims was worthwhile. Please state the nature of your objection.

[KukriKhan]

Please state the nature of your objection.

Not to put words in Xiahou's mouth, but: with more than 50 minutes, and without Miranda, maybe they'd have gotten more. Names of contacts in Yemen, Britain, Nigeria, rumors of other planned attacks, and the like.

[Xiahou]

Please state the nature of your objection.It was the AP that said the interrogation was botched. I only brought up the underwear bomber because it was during the hearings in the aftermath of the attempted bombing that it was revealed that the HIG was not yet up and running. Further, the Newsweek article says the HIG is now up and running, but still isn't being used.

The links were only to answer your question "Whats replacement?". I probably should have included this snippet from the Newsweek article as additional background:
Last summer, the Obama administration announced that, as a replacement for the Bush administration's secret CIA terrorist detention and interrogation program, it would create a SWAT-style team of interrogation experts to travel the world squeezing terrorist suspects for vital informationThe article itself isn't directly about the assassination/detention debate, I only referenced it because it had information on what you seemed to be confused about.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You don't hold political opinions based on rational consideration. Your political convictions are a function of physiological reactions.

In particular, Conservatives are ruled by fear, and are less capable of creative response to changing challenges.

:wink3:




A few weeks ago, I wrote about the impact that politicians' facial appearance has on voters' choices (http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/01/should-politicians-be-splashing-out-on-surgery.html). Another big predictor of electoral success is the policies of the candidate's party. Is it possible to predict which policies will be attractive to voters?

Stereotypes suggest that different types of people are drawn to different ideologies. The liberal is a beard-wearing, sandal-sporting, yoghurt-eating wimp. The hawkish conservative is made of sterner stuff. But do actual voters conform to the mould?

To find out, a group in America invited voters (http://cienciayclima.es/miedo-fisico-politica.pdf) with strong political beliefs to their lab for some tests. On the basis of a questionnaire, they split the volunteers into two groups. The first group wanted to increase political protections, and typically wanted more military spending, warrantless searches, and the death penalty. The second group were more likely to be pacifists and open to immigration.

The scientists then set about scaring the participants and measuring the results. In the midst of a series of innocuous pictures, they showed them a large spider on a terrified face, and a maggot-infested wound. They startled the volunteers with sudden blasts of loud noise.

To find out how successful they'd been at frightening their participants, the scientists measured two things. When we're faced with a threat we sweat a little, and this increases the conductance of our skin. We also blink more when we're startled. On both of these measures, the volunteers who had stronger support for protective policies frightened more easily. It was those with the more liberal outlook who had a smaller fear response (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4783077.ece).

This isn't the only study which found that conservatives and liberals react differently to surprises. David Amodio and colleagues asked students to play a game of 'Go / No Go' (http://home.uchicago.edu/~aaronw/neuro.pdf) whilst their brains were scanned. In this game, a signal telling the player to quickly hit a button is repeatedly flashed on a screen.

Occasionally, an alternative message is shown instead, and when this happens, players must resist hitting the button. This isn't as easy as it sounds, and the button was hit about two-fifths of the time when it shouldn't have been. But the students who described themselves as being more liberal were better at playing the game than the conservatives, and their anterior cingulate cortices (a bit of the brain which, amongst other things, has a role in overriding automatic responses) were more active (http://www.pni.princeton.edu/ncc/publications/2001/BotvinBraverBarchCarterCoh.pdf) when the 'No Go' signal was displayed.

Rather than being solely determined by cold, rational thought, our political views are influenced by our physiological reactions and automatic brain responses. But it's the liberals rather than the conservatives that seem better at coping with shocks. Perhaps it takes a certain toughness to go out in public with sandals and a beard.

http://timesonline.typepad.com/science/2010/03/are-liberals-really-wet.html

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Kind of off topic...but I guess this is the general politics thread.

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points? :huh:

Some time after the election?

[gaelic cowboy]

Kind of off topic...but I guess this is the general politics thread.

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points? :huh:

Some time after the election?

Hmm he was right on the money with Glenn Beck though roasted him alive and ate the fella with no salt

[Lemur]

When did the daily show turn from light hearted humor (how I remember it) to Jon ranting angrily and making sloppily bad political points?
TDS has always been political under Stewart. Hey, comedy is hard; that show has its good nights and its not-so-good nights. That's the nature of the beast. Even The Onion isn't funny every single outing, and they've got a lot less content to fill than TDS.

Look at the attempts to copy TDS. They are not pretty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5CL8SbPRVc). Comedy is hard.

[Subotan]

Hav I Got News For You is a good contender though


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5__VFxOI99E

Bit NSFW

[a completely inoffensive name]

Jon Stewart is always funny. If you truely think both sides are completely rediculous you find TDS is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Otherwise, you are not gonna like it because he does point how the stupidity of both sides which turns people away.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Republicans Block Start of Debate on Financial Bill Published: April 22.[/URL]

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked an effort by Democrats to start debate on legislation to tighten regulation of the nation’s financial system, and the two sides traded bitter accusations about who was standing in the way of a bipartisan agreement.
The majority leader, Harry Reid (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=global.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/business&pos=Frame4A&sn2=df916f95/85192567&sn1=81060a9e/6d0e9a89&camp=foxsearch2010_emailtools_1225557c_nyt5&ad=Cyrus_120x60_01.25&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fcyrus) of Nevada, asked Republicans to agree to begin debating the measure, which would impose a sweeping regulatory framework on Wall Street and big financial institutions. But the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/mitch_mcconnell/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of Kentucky, objected, saying Democrats were pre-empting negotiations to reach a deal.
In response, Mr. Reid said he would call the first procedural vote on Monday in an effort to stop the Republican filibuster (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/filibusters_and_debate_curbs/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier). That vote could test Republican resolve to oppose the measure in an election year, amid public dismay over big Wall Street profits and bonuses even as unemployment remains high.


[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/23/business/economy/23regulate.html?ref=global-home

Partisanship is at it again.

Naturally, I blame the Republicans. :smug:


In healthcare, indeed in much else in Obama's first year, a cooperative tone was chosen by the Democratic party. This ended in public opinion verging on the point of deciding Obama incapable of actually delivering on anything. So this time, or perhaps from now on, a more agressive approach is chosen from the start. I wonder how it will play out.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Blocked an effort...to start debate??

[drone]

If Reid had any cajones (or brains), he would make the Republicans hold the floor for the filibuster. Watch them make fools of themselves rambling aimlessly and sticking their collective feet in their mouths (5 months before the midterm elections). But he doesn't, so he won't. ~:rolleyes:

[Lemur]

Blocked an effort...to start debate??
Unless I'm massively mistaken, that's what a filibuster is. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_%28United_States_Senate%29) As soon as debate is allowed, a simple majority can pass the bill. But by preventing debate or discussion, the filibuster somehow makes the threshold 60 votes before anybody can discuss the thing.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If Reid had any cajones (or brains), he would make the Republicans hold the floor for the filibuster. Watch them make fools of themselves rambling aimlessly and sticking their collective feet in their mouths (5 months before the midterm elections). But he doesn't, so he won't. ~:rolleyes:

I agree with this. If you're going to filibuster, then do it -- paralyze everything if you think it is THAT important. If it isn't then don't filibuster. This filibust by proxy thing is a weakness.

As it is now, there is little or no political consequence for obstructionism (saying "no" just cause its the other party's idea). If you believe in something passionately enough that you are willing to physically filibuster it, AND pay the political price (if any) in the court of public opinion, then it's fair.

[drone]

I agree with this. If you're going to filibuster, then do it -- paralyze everything if you think it is THAT important. If it isn't then don't filibuster. This filibust by proxy thing is a weakness.

As it is now, there is little or no political consequence for obstructionism (saying "no" just cause its the other party's idea). If you believe in something passionately enough that you are willing to physically filibuster it, AND pay the political price (if any) in the court of public opinion, then it's fair.

If I'm not mistaken, Reid (as the Senate Majority Leader), can force them to do it old-school. If he had done this at the start of Obama's term when the GOP first started this nonsense, I'm guessing the physical and mental toll on the GOP senators trying to maintain the block would have exhausted them by, say, July 2009. And then the Senate could actually try to get things done, hopefully with a little civility.

I've said it before,and I'll say it again: Reid and Pelosi need to go. They are terrible Congressional leaders, the sooner the Dems replace them the better.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Republican Governors' Association urges you to take back America. All that's missing is a call to armed insurrection in this video:


http://remembernovember.com/



What an irresponsible party. The GOP is testing the boundaries of what is still democratic. Shameless and dangerous. Sheer sedition. Treason.


'Remember November' alludes to the anti-governement terrorist Guy Fawkes.

[drone]

:laugh4:

[KukriKhan]

Sheer sedition. Treason.

2010 version of 'campaign language'.

[PanzerJaeger]

OBAMA CHEATING SCANDAL

PRESIDENT OBAMA has been caught in a shocking cheating scandal after being caught in a Washington, DC Hotel with a former campaign aide, sources say. (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/obama_cheating_scandal_vera_baker_video_/celebrity/68589)

Hey, they were right about John Edwards! :grin:

[Tellos Athenaios]

Page under construction. What tinfoil madness is this?

[Lemur]

Hey, they were right about John Edwards! :grin:
And they've been wrong plenty of times, as their libel payouts show.

They're citing a single, unnamed source, who's a limo driver. Thin stuff so far. They had three on-record sources signing affidavits over Palin's secret lover, (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/65481) and it still turned out to be bullhockey.

That said, Obama is the biggest, juiciest target on planet Earth, and there plenty of money available for people willing to go on record about our Kenyan muslin prez, so if there's something solid, I expect we will see it surface.

P.S.: Kudos for the Drudge-tribute Big Red Font.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wouldn't much care if he was boffing the patio furniture, as long as it doesn't impinge on his ability to do the job. As to the National Enquirer being correct about John Edwards, even a blind squirrel can find an acorn once in a while.

[Lemur]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FhEHJ-Fb5w

[Hosakawa Tito]

The Prez visited my area on Friday 14th and was greeted by "I Need a Freakin' Job." (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/05/13/earlyshow/main6479377.shtml) Hope he got the message.

[Beskar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FhEHJ-Fb5w

:laugh4:

"I can't tell the difference between degrees of Socialism and Communism!" then you are a dunce. People can still own private property under socialism, they can own their own house, etc. There are big degrees of socialism simply from having a progressive tax system with public education and universal healthcare, to pure communism where everything is owned by everyone, but you are still assigned your own "private property", you just don't own it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Not that anyone thought any different, but the Administration is finally having to come clean (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1&ref=politics) in regards to their blatant deceit over the health care tax. I wonder how many people making under $250,000 will be paying this one.


When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.



While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Lying scumbag...

[Fragony]

heh http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1047711/fbd9ff68/the_obama_bumper_sticker_removal_kit.html

[Xiahou]

From ABC's Jake Tapper:
Breaking News: President Obama Says "I'm Having a Great Time" On Vacation (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/08/breaking-news-president-obama-says-im-having-a-great-time-on-vacation.html)
Apparently it was a slow news day.....

[PanzerJaeger]

Didn't that swamp creature he's married to just get back from vacation in Spain?

[al Roumi]

I saw this on the economist and thought it might be of relevance and interest to this thread: After Iraq, America has had a bruising decade. But do not underestimate either the superpower or its president (http://www.economist.com/node/16888829)

[Strike For The South]

Didn't that swamp creature he's married to just get back from vacation in Spain?

RACIST!

[Xiahou]

What's it mean when people are asking for Bush to speak out and help clean up the mess that Obama has made with his comments? I thought Obama was supposed to be the eloquent one....

From the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion):
The war against the terrorists is not a war against Islam. In fact, you can’t have an effective war against the terrorists if it is a war on Islam.

George W. Bush understood this. And it is odd to see Barack Obama less clear about this matter than his predecessor. It’s time for W. to weigh in.

[PanzerJaeger]

HAH (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html)


We'll start rolling out our Ohio poll results tomorrow but there's one finding on the poll that pretty much sums it up: by a 50-42 margin voters there say they'd rather have George W. Bush in the White House right now than Barack Obama.

Independents hold that view by a 44-37 margin and there are more Democrats who would take Bush back (11%) than there are Republicans who think Obama's preferable (3%.)

A couple months ago I thought the Pennsylvanias and Missouris and Ohios of the world were the biggest battlegrounds for 2010 but when you see numbers like this it makes you think it's probably actually the Californias and the Wisconsins and the Washingtons.

There's not much doubt things are getting worse for Democrats...and they were already pretty bad. Somehow the party base needs to get reinvigorated over the next two months or there's going to be a very, very steep price to pay.


https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Miss_Me_Yet.jpg

[Xiahou]

Change you can believe in (http://www.courant.com/business/hc-anthem-rate-hike-0918-20100917,0,2399459.story)

Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Connecticut requested a wide range of premium increases, which will take effect Oct. 1, to cover the costs of new benefits required by federal health reform. Higher prices mostly affect new members shopping for a health plan on the individual market rather than people who have group plans through an employer or some other organization.

The Connecticut Department of Insurance approved Anthem's request without changes, including a boost of as much as 22.9 percent just to comply with one provision: eliminating annual spending limits per customer. But it's unclear how much more customers will pay because of the variety of plans and the complexity of other factors, such as a person's age.Wait, Obamacare is driving up healthcare costs? No one saw that coming, huh?

[Beskar]

https://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y104/panzerjaeger/Miss_Me_Yet.jpg[/IMG]

Nope, but that is the whole intention of the poster. It is basically saying "Think Obama is bad? Remember Bush".

Though it is America, they would want Bush, as the results of dumbing down in education pay-off.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bush was a big government spendthrift. Why replaced him with an even bigger government bigger spendthrift is beyond me. Oh yeah, now I remember, the electorate had a choice between McCain and Obama.

Of course, our elections have been rather silly of late. Dole in 1996, Kerry in 2004, McCain in 2008...it's not like any of these folks had a compelling campaign going. Add in the results of 2000, where voters were so numbed that they couldn't really pick between them ("other" did well that year) and it's not as though we've had compelling leadership lately. By that standard, Obama isn't so very bad.

[Xiahou]

This (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/154582) sound about right?

-

The analogy I always liked to use was: Bush was driving us off a cliff..... then Obama took over and stomped on the accelerator. :yes:

[drone]

Obama invokes 'state secrets' claim to dismiss suit against targeting of U.S. citizen al-Aulaqi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html?hpid=topnews)

The Obama administration urged a federal judge early Saturday to dismiss a lawsuit over its targeting of a U.S. citizen for killing overseas, saying that the case would reveal state secrets.

The U.S.-born citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, is a cleric now believed to be in Yemen. Federal authorities allege that he is leading a branch of al-Qaeda there.

Government lawyers called the state-secrets argument a last resort to toss out the case, and it seems likely to revive a debate over the reach of a president's powers in the global war against al-Qaeda.

Civil liberties groups sued the U.S. government on behalf of Aulaqi's father, arguing that the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command's placement of Aulaqi on a capture-or-kill list of suspected terrorists - outside a war zone and absent an imminent threat - amounted to an extrajudicial execution order against a U.S. citizen. They asked a U.S. district court in Washington to block the targeting.

In response, Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller said that the groups are asking "a court to take the unprecedented step of intervening in an ongoing military action to direct the President how to manage that action - all on behalf of a leader of a foreign terrorist organization."

Miller added, "If al-Aulaqi wishes to access our legal system, he should surrender to American authorities and return to the United States, where he will be held accountable for his actions."
The administration states that the planning and execution of US citizens are state secrets. No need for minor details like actually filing charges, an indictment, much less a trial. Change we can believe in.

[Xiahou]

More hope and change (http://www.startribune.com/nation/103836983.html):
Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications -- including encrypted e-mail transmitters such as BlackBerry, social networking websites such as Facebook and software that allows direct "peer-to-peer" messaging such as Skype -- to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The legislation, which the Obama administration plans to submit to Congress next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering technological innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.Basically, the administration's plan is to require all Internet technologies to have a backdoor. This will force products that are unable to comply out of business and make them illegal. Further, building backdoors into everything to the government to use is a glaring security hole. Additionally, it would undermine customer confidence in products.

This is a terrible, terrible idea. Luckily, if they're not planning to submit the law until next year, there's a pretty good chance that it won't get passed. The GOP will have a majority in the House by then and will probably block it's passage just because it was Obama's idea..... hopefully.

[Lemur]

This is a terrible, terrible idea.
Yup, it's a baddie. Didn't we go through this once or twice already, with predictable failures?


The GOP will have a majority in the House by then and will probably block it's passage just because it was Obama's idea..... hopefully.
Until you added that "hopefully" I was scared that you had the sight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition).

-edit-

Bruce Schneier (the godfather of network security, for those who've never heard of him) weighs in (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/09/wiretapping_the.html).


Obama isn't the first U.S. president to seek expanded digital eavesdropping. The 1994 CALEA law required phone companies to build ways to better facilitate FBI eavesdropping into their digital phone switches. Since 2001, the National Security Agency has built substantial eavesdropping systems within the United States.

These laws are dangerous, both for citizens of countries like China and citizens of Western democracies. Forcing companies to redesign their communications products and services to facilitate government eavesdropping reduces privacy and liberty; that's obvious. But the laws also make us less safe. Communications systems that have no inherent eavesdropping capabilities are more secure than systems with those capabilities built in.

Any surveillance system invites both criminal appropriation and government abuse. Function creep is the most obvious abuse: New police powers, enacted to fight terrorism, are already used in situations of conventional nonterrorist crime. Internet surveillance and control will be no different.

Official misuses are bad enough, but the unofficial uses are far more worrisome. An infrastructure conducive to surveillance and control invites surveillance and control, both by the people you expect and the people you don't. Any surveillance and control system must itself be secured, and we're not very good at that. Why does anyone think that only authorized law enforcement will mine collected internet data or eavesdrop on Skype and IM conversations?

[Lemur]

An eerie coincidence (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/obama-poll-watch----septe_b_750037.html):


Every few months, I post the following comparison, just to give pause to both the Left and the Right. Because as time goes by, Obama's approval numbers have been very closely tracking one particular previous occupant of the Oval Office -- none other than Ronald Reagan. Every so often, a political commentator will point out that Obama's numbers are currently better than Carter's or Clinton's were at the same point in their presidencies (which they are -- you can see comparison charts all the way back to Eisenhower, updated monthly, at my ObamaPollWatch.com site, if interested). But I personally have been struck at how closely Obama and Reagan are following the same path. Take a look, to see what I'm talking about (Reagan's second term is not charted, to make this easier to read):

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/1009bhovrwr1.jpg

Not only have their lines been tracking overall on the same general trajectory, but check out the last six months or so -- the lines are tracking not just on a general smoothed-out trendline, but month-to-month in almost perfect synch.

Conservatives have built up the myth of Reagan as being well-loved throughout his presidency, but he hit the same midterm doldrums Obama now finds himself in, and for almost exactly the same reason -- the economy was in the same doldrums, and it wasn't recovering fast enough to do the president any good politically. Reagan was about two points lower than Obama in disapproval, but he was almost four points lower in approval, as well.

It's also interesting to note that Reagan hit bottom right when the new midterm Congress (where Republicans took a shellacking) was sworn in.

[PanzerJaeger]

In the proud tradition of American black (and I'm using the term loosely here) politicians on the rails, Obama plays the race card.



Invoking the Civil Rights Movement and emancipation, Obama encouraged “foot soldiers like you, sitting down at lunch counters, standing up for freedom” to do it again for him.

“I need everybody here to go back to your neighborhoods, to go back to your workplaces, to go to churches and go to the barbershops and got to the beauty shops, and tell them we’ve got more work to do,” he said. “Tell them we can’t wait to organize.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43385_Page4.html#ixzz125AvjRlX

Failed stimulus bill: $862, 000, 000, 000.

Health care 'reform': $1, 000, 000, 000, 000.

Making yourself the new Civil Rights Movement™: Priceless.

[Xiahou]

Flailing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_chamber_fight).
I guess the thinking is- we can't run on our record, so let's make a bunch of stuff up. If they can sling enough mud, maybe some of it will stick. :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Flailing (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_chamber_fight).
I guess the thinking is- we can't run on our record, so let's make a bunch of stuff up. If they can sling enough mud, maybe some of it will stick. :yes:

It's worked in the past -- and both major parties have played this particular "card."

[PanzerJaeger]

More interesting polling (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/)...


(CNN) - Americans are divided over whether President Barack Obama or his predecessor has performed better in the White House, according to a new national poll.

And a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday also indicates in the battle for Congress, Republicans hold large advantages over the Democrats among independents, men and blue-collar whites. The poll also indicates that Republicans are much more enthusiastic than Democrats to vote.

By 47 to 45 percent, Americans say Obama is a better president than George W. Bush. But that two point margin is down from a 23 point advantage one year ago.

"Democrats may want to think twice about bringing up former President George W. Bush's name while campaigning this year," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

[Megas Methuselah]

Sucks to be an American, lol.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So you're saying you're not an American?

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

More interesting polling (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/cnntime-poll-was-bush-better-president-than-obama/)...

I didn't know interesting was a synonym for biased.

[Megas Methuselah]

lol

[Crazed Rabbit]

I didn't know interesting was a synonym for biased.

So CNN/Opinion Research Corporation surveys are biased? What makes you say that? Or is any poll that's favorable to Bush and/or unfavorable to Obama biased?


euro euro euro. say wat?

Ah, so you're saying it sucks to be you. I won't disagree.

Anyway, the whole blatant lying from Obama about 'foreign money' funding the Chamber of Commerce's political ads is really disgusting. Maybe a new low for the past few political cycles for someone so high up?

I'll let Reason TV take it away:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akfvbyLoq1c

CR

[Lemur]

Maybe a new low for the past few political cycles for someone so high up?
Maybe, but I don't think anyone will top the deliberate manipulation of the timing of terror alerts (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1211369,00.html) for sheer crassness and cynicism. Claiming the furners are paying for political ads is one thing; invoking fear of death and Ay-rabs is another.

Not that one makes the other okay; I'll leave the tu quoque arguments to the true believers.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Megs got owned onwed onewd !1! :smash:

[PanzerJaeger]

I didn't know interesting was a synonym for biased.

How so?

[Strike For The South]

So you're telling me politicos lie and demonize there oposition to keep and consolidate power?

DO THE PEOPLE KNOW THIS IS HAPPENING

[drone]

Even though Ken Cuccinelli is a self-serving, ambitious little weasel, the man does know his way around a courtroom. He has successfully challenged Obamacare's mandatory health care purchase provision (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/13/AR2010121302420.html?hpid=topnews) in Virginia's US District Court, setting up a future fight in the Supreme Court.

RICHMOND - A federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a key provision of the nation's sweeping health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, the most significant legal setback so far for President Obama's signature domestic initiative.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
Judges decision here (http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/docs/Hudson_ruling.pdf?hpid=topnews).

[PanzerJaeger]

Obamacare hits a new low in support (http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/12/new-low-in-support-for-health-care-reform.html), according to an obviously biased ABC poll.

[PanzerJaeger]

It has been a bad week for the president, to say the least. You know things are going South when liberals in 2011 start sounding like (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html?_r=1) conservatives in 2008.


A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

A somewhat less charitable explanation is that we are a nation that is being held hostage not just by an extremist Republican Party but also by a president who either does not know what he believes or is willing to take whatever position he thinks will lead to his re-election. Perhaps those of us who were so enthralled with the magnificent story he told in “Dreams From My Father” appended a chapter at the end that wasn’t there — the chapter in which he resolves his identity and comes to know who he is and what he believes in.

[Lemur]

That Westin editorial stirred things up quite a bit. My brother, for example, is a straight-up liberal Democrat, and he's been moping around about President 44 lately, which I think is terribly short-sighted. I kinda like Fareed Zakaria's response (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2088018,00.html):

Maybe Obama understands that with a budget deficit of 10% of GDP, the second highest in the industrialized world, and a debt that will rise to almost 100% of GDP in a few years, we cannot cavalierly spend another few trillion dollars hoping that will jump-start the economy. Perhaps he believes that while banks need better regulations, America also needs a vibrant banking system, and that in a globalized economy, constraining American banks will only ensure that the world’s largest global financial institutions will be British, German, Swiss and Chinese. He might understand that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner are smart people who, in long careers in public service, got some things wrong but also got many things right. Perhaps he understands that getting entitlement costs under control is in fact a crucial part of stabilizing our fiscal situation, and that you do need both tax increases and spending cuts—cuts that are smaller than they appear because they all start with the 2010 budget, which was boosted by the stimulus. Is all this dangerous weakness, incoherence and appeasement, or is it common sense?

[Xiahou]

I think my head might have exploded. Obama said something (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/08/06/text-of-obama-speech-on-homeownership/) that I completely agree with....
That begins with winding down the companies known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. For too long, these companies were allowed to make big profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. It was “heads we win, tails you lose.” And it was wrong.

The good news is that there’s a bipartisan group of Senators working to end Fannie and Freddie as we know them. I support these kinds of efforts, and today I want to lay out four core principles for what I believe this reform should look like.

First, private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market. I know that must sound confusing to the folks who call me a raging socialist every day. But just like the health care law that set clear rules for insurance companies to protect consumers and make it more affordable for millions to buy coverage on the private market, I believe that while our housing system must have a limited government role, private lending should be the backbone of the housing market, including community-based lenders who view their borrowers not as a number, but as a neighbor.

Second, no more leaving taxpayers on the hook for irresponsibility or bad decisions. We encourage the pursuit of profit – but the era of expecting a bailout after your pursuit of profit puts the whole country at risk is over.Sure, it'll probably have caveats or other conditions that will ruin it for me.... but I'll just enjoy the moment.
10524